Navigate:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Rep. Pete Hoekstra last week introduced a bill in the House to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently “enshrine” in American society an inviolable set of parents’ rights.
AP Photo

If there were a recipe for creating a new conservative culture-wars issue, it might look something like this: Start with the United Nations, fold in the prospect of an expanded role for government in children’s lives, add some unfortunate court decisions, then toss in Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton.

And indeed, when House Republicans recently found themselves with all these ingredients at hand, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) started pre-heating the oven.

Hoekstra last week introduced a bill in the House to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently “enshrine” in American society an inviolable set of parents’ rights. The bill had 70 co-sponsors, all Republicans, including Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John A. Boehner.

The bill, said Hoekstra, is intended to stem the “slow erosion” of parents’ rights and to circumvent the effects of a United Nations treaty he believes “clearly undermines parental rights in the United States.”

The treaty to which he refers is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 20-year-old document signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 but never ratified. The treaty sets international standards for government obligations to children in areas that range from protection from abuse and exploitation to ensuring a child’s right to free expression.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.

See also

The Convention on the Rights of the Child emerged from relative obscurity most recently when, during the presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama replied to a question about the treaty by saying he found it “embarrassing” that the United States stood with Somalia – the only other U.N. member that has not ratified the treaty — and promised to review it as president, and then again in the confirmation hearing for Ambassador Susan Rice, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) pressed the then-nominee on the treaty’s status.

“[H]ow can we be proud of our country when we haven't ratified?” Boxer asked. “In this case, the only other country, as I understand it, that hasn't ratified is Somalia. OK — excuse me. This is America. We're standing with Somalia. What is happening? What has happened?”

Rice replied that it was a “shame” that the United States is “keeping company” with Somalia, adding that “there can be no doubt that the president-elect and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question.”

That was enough to raise the hackles of parents’ rights advocates and sympathetic legislators, but it was far from a promise that the treaty would be sent to the Senate, or that it would ultimately be ratified; Rice also told Boxer that it was a “complicated treaty,” and that the State Department would need to take a close look at how to “manage the challenges of domestic implementation.”

She wasn’t kidding.

By its nature, the treaty combines two “third-rail” issues for conservatives — the implications of international treaties for U.S. sovereignty, and the role of the United Nations in U.S. affairs. “Opposing the U.N has been a rallying cry of the right for decades,” notes Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion

As they should.

Why do Conservatives always want to amend the Constitution. They say they are for smaller government and yest amending the Constitution leads to bigger government. Amending the Constitution is not the right place to deal with this if it turns out to be a problem. Seems to me that Politico is having a hard time finding anything worth writing about now days.

A good explanation in this article. The treaty is nuanced and complex; therefore, a fearful thing for Republicans. Can we throw the flag burning ban and ban on gay marriage in the pot too? Might as well go for the whole package.

Nice to know the repubs have enough spare time to spend on this. I hope they consulted with Somalia so they can present a united front.

Oh, goody! Another opportunity for right-wingnuts to spread their paranoid fantasies of some U.N.-Obama antichrist tag-team plot to take over the world and force us all to raise our children as (a) homosexuals; (b) Muslims; (c) atheists; (d) socialists; or (e) all of the above. Were we to examine our fundamentalists' reasons for opposing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child alongside the reasons given by Somali fundamentalists for opposing it, we might find very little difference between them (save that in Somalia item "b" above would read "Christians" and/or "Jews" instead of "Muslims"). In the absence of any reality-based platform from which to oppose Obama and the Democrats, wedge issues like this and stunts like those silly "tea parties" they're planning for tax day are the one vain hope Republicans have left to remain relevant. So sad.... But so funny.... Is it more sad than funny, or more funny than sad?

I'm not worried about the UN. The biggest impediment to parents rights in Missouri is the GOP. In Missouri when you send your kids to school, the school becomes the guardian. The school sent my child to a psychologist for six weeks without my knowledge to make sure we weren't abusing him. As far as I'm concerned the GOP need to stop playing GOD and let families alone. We don't need a Constitutional Amendment, just less Republicans. If it's something bad in this country, the GOP are probably heading it up.

Haven't these people every read "The Lord of the Flies"? Children need to be loved at all times, but disciplined when doing things that are not acceptable. Discipline does not mean beaten. Every fair minded person would agreed that physical disciplining of a child should not be severe enough to cause them to severely hurt. Personally, Oregon's law is a good model, where spanking is legal, as long as the parent does not leave a bruise.

Look at the behavior of kids now days. While I am only 36, I have seen my nieces say things to teachers that I never would have dreamed of. We as parents need to step up and provide more teaching to our children. It is not the government's job to teach our children morals, respect for other, and self disciple.

If our government gives our nation's soverignty away with this treaty, it would be one of the most treasonous things I have ever heard of.

Look at the behavior of kids now days. While I am only 36, I have seen my nieces say things to teachers that I never would have dreamed of. We as parents need to step up and provide more teaching to our children. It is not the government's job to teach our children morals, respect for other, and self disciple.

If our government gives our nation's soverignty away with this treaty, it would be one of the most treasonous things I have ever heard of.

I do believe that the issues need to be discussed rationally without it becoming a political football. Please lets not make it this years Terri Schiavo (sic) case.

No, amending the constitution does not always lead to larger government. Amending the constitition establishing laws for things that our founding fathers coulding think of. What ever happening, we should not be in this treaty. It gives a loophole that the UN would have soverigny over American Citizens, which I believe is a over reach of the U.N. If the federal government gives up these our rights to the U.N. is treason. The Constitution is the law of this land, not the by-laws of the U.N.

Do we have to cite all of the cases of parental neglect and abuse in order for people to wake up.

3 wake up. The US already has child abuse laws, child protection laws, etc. If there is an area that needs to be addressed, pass the law and enforce the law. Put child killers/rapists to death, punish the guilty.

That does not mean we have to cede our rights to the United Nations.

GOP`sNewFace: Apr. 8, 2009 - 7:33 PM EST

As they should.

Why do Conservatives always want to amend the Constitution.

Why are liberals putting the United Nations before the constitution.

The "treaty" would mean that if a parent is taking the children to church, the child could call the police and say he doesn't want to go, or the child doesn't want to be baptist, or catholic or jewish. Children are not adults. Once adults, they can be whatever religon they want. Who could be so stupid as to want the government interfering with every aspect of child rearing